S. Viiava Simha Reddv v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lgcia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issuL a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the Respondent's in continuing the petitioner under suspension without reviewing the same pursuant to the impugned memo No. SE/OP/HBGIDE(TyPO/JAO/ADM/F.38/D.No.629 dated 05.03.2024 being arbitrary, illegal and in contrary to the orders issued in G'O'Ms No' 86 General Administration (services-c) department dated 08-03-1994 and in violation of article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direction may be given to the respondents to review the suspension order dated 05-03-2024 and reinstate the petitioner in to service with benefits incidental thereto. A.NO:I OF 2025 t. Petition Under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to review the order of suspension issued by the 5th Respondent vide Memo No. SE/OP/HBG/DE(T/PO/JAO/ADM /F.38/D.No.629 dated 05.03.2024 in accordance with the orders issued in G'O.Ms No.86 dated 08-03-1994 and reinstate the petitioner into service. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt S.CHANDRA MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'t : GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRI P.SHANKAR RAO' LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF TELANGANA LIMITED The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK WRIT PEIITION No.2448.4 oF 2025. ORDER: with the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the adrnission stage itself.

2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "-..1o issue a wit, order or direction more particalarlg one in the nature of writ of Mandamus aggrieued bg the actian oj tne aesfind.ent's in continuiig the petitioner und.er suspension uithaut reuiewing thi to*" pursuant to the impugned me mo No. SE/ op/ HBG/ DEA/ po/ JAO/ ADM/ F. 3 8 / D. No. 62 9 dated 05.03.2024 being arbitrary, illegar and in contrary to the orders bsued in G-O.Ms No.86 General Admini-stration (seruices-C)-department dated Og-O3- 1994 and in uiolation of article 14 of tne ixnstidttion of Ind.ia and. consequentlg direction may be giuen to the respondents to reuieut the suspension order dated O5-O3-2O24 and reinstate itrc petitioner in to seruice with benefits incidental thereto... "

3. Heard sri s.chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government pleader for Services-ll appearing for respondent No.1; and sri p.shankar Rao, teafned counsel representing sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for Southern Power Distribution company of Telangana Limited, t appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

4. Learried counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Junior Accounts officer in respondent No.S-office, a case in crime No.04/RCT-}R-212024 dated 01.03.2024 on the fiIe of Anti-corruption Bureau, city Range-2, ! l I I i ,i I i i ! 2 PK,J wp_24aaa-2025 \ I Hyderabad, was regiStered against the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent No.5 uide Memo dated O5.O3.2O24. It is further subnlitted that the Hon'ble Apex Courl- in Ajag Kumar Choudhary o. Union of Indiar, has categorically held that a suspension order should not be extended beyond three months if, within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent ofhcer/employee and as per G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 08.03.1994, respondent No.S is bound to review the suspension order of the petitioner at the end of every six months. However, neither the memorandum of charges/charge sheet has been filed nor the suspension order has been reviewed since the date of its issuance. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition directing respondent No.5 to revieu6' the suspension order, dated 05.03.2024, within a reasbnable period of time.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 fairly submits that respondent No.S will revjew the suspension order; dated O5.O3.2O24, in accordance with law.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of 1(2015) 7 Supreme Court Case 291 ) 3 PK,J wp_21a81_2025 directing respondent No.S to review the suspension order, dated

05.03.2024, issued to the petitioner, strictly in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in .eiag Kuntar choudha4yrs case and in accordance with G.o.Ms.No.86, dated 0g.03. lgg4, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I //TRUE COPYII To

2. 3 4

7. 8. SA o A. SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ! I t HIGH COURT DATED:19/08/2025 l> \ i) () r- i: t'fl! Tili '-). ' i. ',-, -q. ! .. ,t ORDER WP.No.24484 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. n